No, we don't need border and immigration control!
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...ildren-born-us
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
8% of Child Births in US are anchor babies born to illegals
No, we don't need border and immigration control!
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...ildren-born-us
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.] -- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)
“I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” ~ Nathan Hale (final words before being hanged by the British, September 22, 1776.)
If at first you don't succeed -- skydiving is not for you
If I rob a bank and then just deposit the money, do I get to keep it?
If I break into a Kinkos and make copies, do I get to keep those?
u
You can't get a legal outcome from an illegal act.
I'll stop buying black rifles when my wife stops buying black shoes.
When people talk about amending the 14th Amendment, what has been suggested so far? A full repeal would be stupid. America isn't a special club that gets to chose its members. However, an amendment to specify that only children born to people who are already citizens are automatically citizens would be smart. I assume that's what people are suggesting, but wouldn't be surprised if it was more stupid.
"There are no finger prints under water."
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I thought the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" portion of the first sentence implied that citizenship only be given to persons born to people who are subject to US jurisdiction (i.e. American citizens).
I Googled "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Wow. Apparently there's an insane amount of interpretations pertaining to that portion of that first sentence. I've thoroughly confused myself now. I've got some reading to do.
Do what you've always done and get what you've always gotten.
children born to those who have at least 1 parent that is a legal US citizen should become citizens themselves.
if their parents were not US citizens, they are citizens of their parents respective country(ies) as they deem appropriate.
Just because a child is born here doesn't mean they get to enjoy the benefits our country has to offer...
Originally Posted by steveopia
Good for you, I was about to post that. The way I read it is:
Everyone born (no coma) AND is subject to respective state jurisdiction (under the rule of law ALREADY - i.e. 1 parent is ALREADY a citizen) are citizens.
+1 to Sniper.
Yes, the citizenship clause of the 14th ammendment has had a lot of activity after it was ammended. There are a lot of SC rulings on it's meanings. Keep in mind while reading the 14th that it's primary goal was to force the defeated southern states into recognizing the citizenship of the slaves after the civil war ended. The question as to the citizenship of a child from two non-citizens within the US's jurisdiction has always been ruled in favor of granting the citizenship to the child. The clarifying SC ruling that applies in this area was US v WONG in 1898. The SC essentially ruled the child had citizenship even though the parents were not US citizens. This ruling also established the basis for legal vs illegal immigrants, a concept that didn't exist before the ruling (pretty important concept for some who opposed my viewpoint in a previous thread where I discussed the immigration wave of the 1840s and 50s).
There are a few other rulings setting precidence in this area too that you should look at also, but the main one is the Wong ruling.
Mom's comin' 'round to put it back the way it ought to be.
Anyone that thinks war is good is ignorant. Anyone that thinks war isn't needed is stupid.
Negative -- the folks not subject to the jurisdiction thereof are diplomats. Anyone else IS subject to US law. You needn't be a citizen. You only need to be present. Most of that other stuff is people conjecturing on the subject without any of the other information that makes it make actual sense, as opposed to how someone not familiar with the subject might interpret to the best of their ability.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote